DominicCobb

^I think that's a pretty damn good job considering.

Waiting for someone to post John Carter.

bkev said:

Okay guys. I've numerously declared my love for Batman the Animated Series and the numerous worlds it has inspired. So it may not come as a surprise to all of you that I really, really dig this. The Hub, master of all things Bat from Adam West to Kevin Conroy, actually hired the cast of the animated series to record their own version of the Dark Knight Rises trailer. The footage itself is poorly put together by the Hub (changing aspect ratios and horrible interlacing... what?) but I'd be lying if this didn't get me even more pumped.

You forced me to change my pants.

darth_ender said:

^To demonstrate how awful these films are to the whole world, they scored less than a 7/10 on the DominicCobb scale, which is like scoring negative points to everyone else ;)

Ha, yeah, that's probably true!

Continuing my countdown to TDKR I watched

Batman Forever (1995) 5.5/10 - No matter how many times I watch it, I always feel this movie is way more enjoyable than it has any right to be. I thank Jim Carrey.

Batman & Robin (1997) 3/10 - I tried to put my hatred aside while rewatching this, and guess what I found: it's still awful. But it's also almost fun. Not actually fun, but almost.

georgec said:

Tenenbaums

I'll have to check it out.

Anyways, back in gear preparing for The Dark Knight Rises, I watched

A Tale of Two Cities (1935) 9/10 - I've been reading that Christopher Nolan took inspiration from the Dickens book. I didn't really have the time to read it, though I wanted to, but I noticed that the film was playing on TCM, so I DVRed it, and watched it. Very interesting story. I can't say for sure, but they must have taken out quite a bit from the book because the film feels, at many times, shallow. But it picks up significantly in the second half, and features a great performance by Ronald Colman. Recommended.

TV's Frink said:

Rushmore is fantastic. His best film IMO.

It's hard for me to really judge as I've only seen two of his, but from what I've heard most people say the same. Personally, I think I prefer Moonrise Kingdom. I don't think either is necessarily better than the other, but MK is definitely more stylized (which I liked) and has, in my opinion, a more interesting storyline. The characterization in Rushmore is better, so it's a close call. I think MK is my favorite of his (so far).

Rushmore (1998) 9/10 - I decide to watch this after seeing Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom. I definitely want to watch more of his films. I really loved how the eccentricity of the characters blend perfectly into the films real world settings and emotions. 

SilverWook said:

Was the Singin' In The Rain presentation better than most presentations of this type?

Saw a nice film print of this a couple years ago. Seeing it with an audience is the only way to go. :)

Well the only other one of these I've ever done was last year they had all of the LOTR extended editions, one each Tuesday for three weeks. That was pretty awesome. In terms of comparison, I'm pretty sure Singin' In the Rain used the new Blu-ray remaster, as did LOTR. It looked fine, but definitely a digital presentation. I would have preferred otherwise but in the end it's not that big of a deal. The LOTR films each had an introduction by Peter Jackson. Singin' In the Rain had, because it was presented by TCM, an introduction by Robert Osborne, an interview between Osborne and Debbie Reynolds from the TCM film fest, and some clips of older interviews with Donald O'Connor and Gene Kelly's wife.

And yes the audience's reception was enlivening. You always get the most receptive of audiences with presentations like that. 

MacArthur (1977) 8/10 - A well done historical recount as a vehicle for some good old Gregory Peckory. Not much else.

Moon (2009) 9/10 - A beautifully unique film. Great performance(s) from Sam Rockwell.

Singin' In the Rain (1952) 10/10 - I was lucky enough to catch the one night 60th Anniversary rerelease of this last night. As many times as I have seen it on the small screen, it is nothing compared to the experience of seeing it in the theater. There, it's even more wonderful than ever. This was extra special to me because this is the first time I have theatrically seen a film that was released before 1995 (I'm young, deal with it). TCM has been presenting these great old flicks for awhile now and I just haven't gotten the chance. I'm so glad I did and I hope to catch more - they said later this year there would be The Birds, Frankenstein/Bride of Frankenstein, and To Kill a Mockingbird (I want to see all of them on the silver screen, but if I can only go to one I hope it'll be TKAM).

Magnolia (1999) 9.5/10 - Really a very well crafted piece of cinema. Each individual story that's told would only be vaguely interesting on its own, but how they are all intertwined - not only through characters and events - but through the themes, makes for a rare 3+ hour edge-of-your-seat movie-watching experience. I was going to dock a full point (down to 9) because the film seems to almost rush during its last hour (I know its weird to say a 188 minute movie should be longer - but it should be), but I felt that would be overlooking what an achievement this film really is.  

Don't know if I will get this...

zombie84 said:

Batman Returns (1992) 8/10 - I've never actually seen this one all the way through, and now that I have, I must say it is far superior to it's predecessor. It's just really weird - in a good way.

I've shamefully only seen TDK once (I know, I know), but this is still my favourite film in the Batman series. Except, I don't really look at it as a Batman film. It's just Tim Burton being given an unlimited amount of money to do whatever he wanted as long as Batman was in there somewhere. And I would consider it his best film; it's basically a 1930s German Expressionist horror film. TDK is probably the best Batman film, but this is the best film in the franchise, if that makes any sense.

Oh no, it's not really a Batman film to me either, just a Burton film. I think that is why it succeeds in ways the first doesn't, because that film was trying to be both a Burton film and a Batman film, and thus lacked in both areas. As for TDK, I have to say it is probably one of my top favorite films of all time, but I can understand how someone with slightly different tastes then me would put Batman Returns higher. Still definitely worth re-watching though. 

The Wrestler (2008) 9.5/10 - Been meaning to watch this for awhile and I have to say it really is a great film.

La Strada (1954) 9/10 - Not my favorite Fellini picture but good nonetheless.

Battle Royale (2000) 10/10 - Crazy, crazy, awesome movie. Must-see. Really surprised to find out that it's only been available in the US since last year.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) 8.5/10 - Saw this again with family for my birthday. Still love it.

Batman (1989) 6.5/10 - I'm starting a sort of a marathon before TDKR. I haven't seen this one since I was a kid, and it's not as good as I remember. It gets points mostly for the influence it had on the Animated Series and Nolan's films.

Batman Returns (1992) 8/10 - I've never actually seen this one all the way through, and now that I have, I must say it is far superior to it's predecessor. It's just really weird - in a good way.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012) 9.5/10 - Loved it. Funny, oddly touching. Subtly outrageous. Beautiful, exciting. Words I would use to describe what I would easily call my favorite film so far this year. Also, since I went to a theater in Newport, RI (the area in which it was filmed) they had props from the movie set up all around the place ("Island Police" and "Fort Lebanon" signs, Sam's canoe, the magazine Edward Norton read, and a bunch of other stuff too). It was really cool.

ChainsawAsh said:

Also loved The Amazing Spider-Man.  Andrew Garfield is perfect as Peter Parker, and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is infinitely more interesting (and capable - she actually gets out of a potentially deadly situation on her own!  Gasp!) than Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane.  Garfield and Stone have great chemistry together, too, which really sells the love story.

I didn't mind the Lizard's flat face - that was what he looked like in his original appearance anyway, if I remember correctly.

I did think the whole "mystery" behind Peter's parents was a pretty lame way to try to make this iteration of Spider-Man different from the last, which was unnecessary as it was already different enough to begin with.  Gone is the cheese of the Raimi films (minus the thing with the cranes at the end, that was a little much), and the cardboard characters that came along with it.  (Though Aunt May is criminally underused this go-round.)

I also loved Spidey's fights and web-slinging.  Much more believable and, in my opinion, Spider-Man-like than previous attempts.

And the best part?  This Spider-Man could easily be rolled into the current Marvel cinematic universe, assuming Sony, Marvel, and Disney can make some sort of deal.

8.5/10, easy.  (For comparison, the only one of the first trilogy that comes close is the second one, which I'd give a 7/10).

Totally agree on all points.

I did a Marc Webb double header-

(500) Days of Summer 9/10

The Amazing Spiderman 9/10

Saw this, loved it. I mean like I really, really loved it. This is from someone who also really, really loved the Raimi films. This one is just really good. It's really a shame that most people will look at this movie with been there, done that glasses on (speaking of glasses, the 3-D was pretty cool, but not amazing). Which is unfortunate because, I was able to put that aside and take it for what it was, and this is really a spectacular piece.

Seven Samurai 10/10, or maybe I should say 7/7

Risky Business 10/10

Black Swan 9/10

Sanjuro 9/10

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead 9/10 

The name change costed them at the very least $20 mil. domestically (complete guess by the way, but altogether entirely likely).

Maybe cleavage-diving is the more appropriate term.

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

Quiz Show 9/10 = great

Adaptation. 9/10 = great

Fido 7/10 = horrible, barely watchable

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 10/10 = fantastic

Lost in Translation 10/10 = fantastic

Clarified that a bit fer ya.

I thought Fido was a fun little flick. 

Take Shelter 9/10

Groundhog Day 9/10

Attack the Block 9/10

Trainspotting 9/10

Brave 8/10

Quiz Show 9/10

Adaptation. 9/10

Fido 7/10

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 10/10

Lost in Translation 10/10

I think people were bound to be disappointed by whatever the Space Jockeys ended up being, just by the sheer fact that 33 years of speculating have passed. Much the same thing happened with the prequels, if you'll allow me to talk some heresy. I think you just have to deal with the fact the Scott never envisioned the Space Jockeys how you envisioned the Space Jockeys. 

I myself was pleasantly surprised to learn that the elephant thing was merely a mask that was worn by one of our giant, white creators. Now I'm starting to sound sarcastic. But I'm really not.

I'm not a big fan of Sly Stallone, if that answers your question.

Oh, and I forgot to say I watched 

Alien 10/10

and Aliens 10/10

before I went to Prometheus.

Haven't posted here in a bit so here goes:

Throne of Blood 9/10

Get Carter 9/10

Gun Crazy 9/10

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town 9/10

The Wild One 9/10

Punch-Drunk Love 9/10

Yojimbo 10/10

Being John Malkovich 9/10

and Prometheus 9/10

Since it's a pretty big deal I'll talk a bit about this one. I thought it was outstanding. I realized early on in the third act that they weren't going to answer the two big overarching questions until a sequel, so I didn't let that disappoint me and impede my enjoyment of the film. As I think about it more though, there's enough in the film to theorize on and come up with your own answers. So I think the film actually stands on its own. To those that hate its ambiguity, I say: there have been ambiguous films in the past, and there will be more in the future. Deal with it. For those who complain about the characters and plot holes: I believe quite a few of these can/will be solved with additional viewings/deleted scenes. I also don't believe they were in any way intrusive on initial viewing. If they are to you, I think you might be quick to scrutinize. Just to be clear, I agree with you to some extent, but only enough to deduct a point. I also think people are overlooking the sheer excellence of the film's production/costume design, visual effects, acting, and general mythology. What I'm trying to say is the film feels like no other, and and I think people are forgetting that. 

DuracellEnergizer said:

^It's gotta be better than the version with Jeff Bridges, though, right?

Yeah, I mean come on. I know a lot of people don't like the 2005 version, but seriously, if you say you prefer the 1976 one you're just trying to start an argument and nothing else.